- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5800 WP No. 102124 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 102124 OF 2024 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: SHIVANAND B.MALAGANVI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER, R/O: I.B. ROAD, VIKRAMPUR, ATHANI-591 304, DIST: BELAGAVI. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARAD.M.PATIL., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD DEPARTMENT DIVISION, CHIKODI-591 201. CHIKODI RURAL, CHIKODI-591 201. DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD SUB-DIVISION, ATHANI-591 304. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GANGADHAR.J.M., AAG A/W SRI. PRAVEEN.K.UPPAR., AGA FOR R1-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5800 WP No. 102124 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Sharad M.Patil, counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Gangadhar J.M., AAG along with Sri.Praveen K.Uppar., AGA for the respondents have appeared in person. 2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 05/03/2024 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-H. 3. The petitioner contends that he is a Class-I Civil Contractor and was a successful bidder and was awarded a contract on 19.05.2023. The Government contends that despite the work order, the petitioner failed to execute the work. Hence, they were constrained to issue notices one after the other i.e., on 08.11.2023, 20.11.2023 and 07.12.2023 and final notice on 13.12.2023. The Panchanama was also conducted. However, the petitioner failed to co-operate with the same. Hence, they were constrained to terminate the contract by order dated 05.03.2024. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5800 WP No. 102124 of 2024 4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the writ papers with care. 5. The short controversy is about the termination of contract. Despite issuance of notices, the petitioner did not co- operate. Moreover, there is an arbitration clause under the agreement. If at all the petitioner has any grievance about the cancellation of the tender, he is at liberty to agitate his grievance by invoking the arbitration clause in accordance with law, if so advised. 6. Resultantly, Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP,CLK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63